What do you think?
Rate this book
Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology
One of the most important works of modern anthropology. Written against the backdrop of the student uprisings of the late 1960s, the book took seriously the revolutionary fervour of the times, but instead of seeking to destroy the rituals and symbols that can govern and oppress, Mary Douglas saw instead that if transformation were needed, it could only be made possible through better understanding. Expressed with clarity and dynamism, the passionate analysis which follows remains one of the most insightful and rewarding studies of human behaviour ever written.
240 pages, Paperback
First published December 31, 1970
33 people are currently reading
923 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
September 10, 2018
Honestly, I was hoping "Natural Symbols" would talk more about natural symbols
November 29, 2024
Symbolic anthropology is generally regarded as akin to doing psychoanalysis on a cultural level, however I think this is obscured by a few key distinctions. Broadly speaking, this is much closer to the post-structuralist camp in the syncretic scope of its analysis, rather than psychoanalysis’s proclivity of remaining within the structuralist paradigm.
This is because structuralism normally takes a pair of symbols or elements and works out a kind of relationship that inheres, subsists, or underlies both/makes them possible. Mary Douglas is rather more interested in the relationship between what are seen to be two incommensurable dimensions of analysis: the language of theology and of religious studies. While one is avowedly construed in emic terms and the latter in etic terms, Douglas wants to provide a way to model the content expressed in both through the two axes of speech/conceptual distinctions on the vertical one, and individual to group influence on the horizontal axis.
Most interestingly, the way to model societies and individuals along these lines has some bizarre properties. But essentially, the division of labor in society reflects the increasingly elaborate ways in which one can speak of things, and therefore conceptualize and think of them in public terms available to those in that society. Yet the inner life, and private distinctions that are seen as reactionary and inherent to many anti-ritualist movements across cultures is ultimately parasitic on the public expressions and forms available to contest within the public sphere. We must take for granted that an individual is capable of a vastly rich, inner symbolic life that blurs the established boundaries of a restricted kind of speech.
I think in some ways, she offers a much more robust set of tools to analyze symbols than say Geertz’s appropriation of Ryle’s thin/thick description, but this comes at the cost of a much more elaborate set of metaphysical commitments. To say something of a culture and its society, for Douglas, is to say something about their implicit cosmological background commitments and the varieties of possible forms of transgressions and affirmations. Extensions of this to analyses of power and its relationship to forms of subsistence, law, knowledge, and ground level commitments/mores almost come for free.
In short, the framework Douglas provides allows much more readily for analysis of relations of material consequence and incompatibility on the semantic and worldly side of things, whereas Geertz would be much more normatively focused than her modal appreciation of states of affairs. Both require the weight of history as it collapses into fixed points from the accordion of time to make sense, but Douglas’s avowed metaphysical speculation stands out in comparison to Geertz’s comfort in only allowing cosmological reflections to come in as relevant in an analysis.
Typically I am wary of the way quantification is used in social science, but this is relatively conservative in the kinds of things Douglas is trying to do, but also profoundly progressive in many other ways. She’s not trying to reinvent the wheel, but putting the axes of grid and group as a minimal kind of representation possible to analyze in any society has rich applications. To reiterate, investigating how forms of expression obscured by the weight of time does not have to be so disenchanted, and probably a great reason as to why Douglas drops the term “social archaeology” late in the book.i feel invigorated by the ability of Douglas to compare and contrast the bog Irish of of post Vatican II England to the Nuer pastoralists in common form that does not conflate their forms of life. After all, boundaries and transgression, while universal, has many different particular expressions, but this does not obfuscate the fact that conflict seems to manifest and resolve in different ways across them and even within the same culture.
To be clear, I think there are many interesting objections or ways that this kind of analysis is limited and by default limiting, but having this in one’s conceptual arsenal to investigate the history of ideas as it relates to both language and culture cannot be discounted for its utility and incredible scope.
This is because structuralism normally takes a pair of symbols or elements and works out a kind of relationship that inheres, subsists, or underlies both/makes them possible. Mary Douglas is rather more interested in the relationship between what are seen to be two incommensurable dimensions of analysis: the language of theology and of religious studies. While one is avowedly construed in emic terms and the latter in etic terms, Douglas wants to provide a way to model the content expressed in both through the two axes of speech/conceptual distinctions on the vertical one, and individual to group influence on the horizontal axis.
Most interestingly, the way to model societies and individuals along these lines has some bizarre properties. But essentially, the division of labor in society reflects the increasingly elaborate ways in which one can speak of things, and therefore conceptualize and think of them in public terms available to those in that society. Yet the inner life, and private distinctions that are seen as reactionary and inherent to many anti-ritualist movements across cultures is ultimately parasitic on the public expressions and forms available to contest within the public sphere. We must take for granted that an individual is capable of a vastly rich, inner symbolic life that blurs the established boundaries of a restricted kind of speech.
I think in some ways, she offers a much more robust set of tools to analyze symbols than say Geertz’s appropriation of Ryle’s thin/thick description, but this comes at the cost of a much more elaborate set of metaphysical commitments. To say something of a culture and its society, for Douglas, is to say something about their implicit cosmological background commitments and the varieties of possible forms of transgressions and affirmations. Extensions of this to analyses of power and its relationship to forms of subsistence, law, knowledge, and ground level commitments/mores almost come for free.
In short, the framework Douglas provides allows much more readily for analysis of relations of material consequence and incompatibility on the semantic and worldly side of things, whereas Geertz would be much more normatively focused than her modal appreciation of states of affairs. Both require the weight of history as it collapses into fixed points from the accordion of time to make sense, but Douglas’s avowed metaphysical speculation stands out in comparison to Geertz’s comfort in only allowing cosmological reflections to come in as relevant in an analysis.
Typically I am wary of the way quantification is used in social science, but this is relatively conservative in the kinds of things Douglas is trying to do, but also profoundly progressive in many other ways. She’s not trying to reinvent the wheel, but putting the axes of grid and group as a minimal kind of representation possible to analyze in any society has rich applications. To reiterate, investigating how forms of expression obscured by the weight of time does not have to be so disenchanted, and probably a great reason as to why Douglas drops the term “social archaeology” late in the book.i feel invigorated by the ability of Douglas to compare and contrast the bog Irish of of post Vatican II England to the Nuer pastoralists in common form that does not conflate their forms of life. After all, boundaries and transgression, while universal, has many different particular expressions, but this does not obfuscate the fact that conflict seems to manifest and resolve in different ways across them and even within the same culture.
To be clear, I think there are many interesting objections or ways that this kind of analysis is limited and by default limiting, but having this in one’s conceptual arsenal to investigate the history of ideas as it relates to both language and culture cannot be discounted for its utility and incredible scope.
March 28, 2008
Douglas is a grade A thinker, even if she's got a penchant for not-so-needed big words. First time I've ever read "disestablishmentarianism" in a legitimate sentence. Still very readable for something on symbol systems.
A background in anthro/sociological theory might be needed for the Durkhiem/Barthes/Turner/etc stuff she brings up, but you can always wiki that if this looks interesting.
A background in anthro/sociological theory might be needed for the Durkhiem/Barthes/Turner/etc stuff she brings up, but you can always wiki that if this looks interesting.
August 25, 2021
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
June 24, 2021
Written in the immediate wake of the student rebellions of the late 1960s, Mary Douglas's "Natural Symbols," recently re-released in the 'Routledge Classics' series, has lost none of its relevance despite its relative advanced age, for the content of the book, rigorously presented and cogent and lucid in its analysis, is still desperately needed in the world of the 21st century. The book itself, divided in ten distinct chapters, is a miracle of clarity and depth, with an argument/thesis present that is incredibly well supported by case examples which lucidly delineates the four types of society, and their relative relationship with ritual, that makes up human collective life. So, for instance, we start with an example of the "Bog Irish," those immigrants to London life who desperately hold on to the tradition of meatless Fridays despite the entreaties of their superiors who bemoan their archaic ways. Why does this group hold on to this tradition? Additionally, case studies more far afield, from the Nuer and Dinka people of South Sudan, are used to accurately portray the characteristics and nature of collective beliefs and traditions about rituals, purity, witchcraft, sin, and duty. Lurking behind the wonderfully and engagingly presented argument is the thesis of Durkheim that "God is Society; Society is God." Mrs. Douglas actively engages this chiastic thesis, changing its emphasis and truthfulness in light of the evidence, finely marshalled and presented, that makes up the lion share of this book. This book is highly recommended for those interested in the sources and causes of specific religious and spiritual beliefs as it presents solutions that are cogent and reasonable. Perhaps further research has made her thesis modified or outmoded, but, to my ears, Mrs. Douglas has sensitively presented answers to deep and profound questions in a reasonable and materially-based manner. A terribly enlightening book, written in a mostly smooth, easy to comprehend manner, "Natural Symbols" is a prophet, wild-haired and wide-eyed (like Ezekiel or John the Baptist), announcing a new, more wise way of viewing sagacious questions. Read it and grow!
October 31, 2013
maybe we should ban religious studies scholars from playing mathematicians.
October 15, 2017
I had to read this book for an online course. It was interesting and I was able to understand most, if not all, of what I read. I think the author did an excellent job at getting her main points across in the book. There are numerous examples throughout the book involving primitive tribes as well as some comparisons between primitive societies and industrial (modern) societies.
I thought it interesting that at one point she admits that she ignores discrepancies "in the 'real' world" in order for her theory to work as well as she wants it to work. It made me wonder how valid a theory it could be if she chooses to ignore irregularities that would call her theory into question. Overall, though, it did seem that her theory about groups based on a grid system seemed to be able to accurately describe many, if not most, groups and/or societies.
I thought the "weakest" chapter in the book was the one entitled "the problem with evil." I did not feel like she really delved into this problem as much as she seemed to skirt it before going off onto a tangent I felt was more of a "rabbit trail" than a valid discussion of the chapter's declared topic. I might have misunderstood the point she was trying to make, but I still felt that it was the weakest chapter in the book (in term of the narrative "supporting" the chapter's declared topic of conversation).
Her theory seems to focus on the belief that every group, every individual falls somewhere on a grid. Movement on the grid to the "left" is supposed to represent strong individuality (as being "weak" on the grid because there are to "strong moral values" or even "conviction over 'sin'") and movement to the "right" represents strong groups or strong societal pressure. Movement "up" the grid is also seen as "strong" whereas movement "down" the grid is seen as "weak." So you have four 'primary quadrants' composed of "strong grid, strong group," "strong grid, weak group," " weak grid, strong group," and "weak grid, weak group." The "strong" side of the grid is composed of those who are rigid, rational, and subsume the individual to the desires/pressure of the greater group. The "weak" side of the grid is composed of people who are more "individualistic" or "independent" in nature; they are less rigid, less rational, and do not necessarily have a strong sense of moral or spiritual values.
She did make a number of statements that I thought were interesting. Some of the ones that stood out to me the most were:
Any given classification system is itself a product of social relations. (59)
Progress further down that line to greater coherence of the private philosophy depends on an accompanying isolation from social pressures. (61)
To remain free of the public system of classification, the person needs above all not to covet its rewards. (61)
It seems that the freedom to be completely relaxed must be culturally controlled. (78)
There are thus four general characteristics of the witchcraft cosmology: the idea of the bad outside and the good inside, the inside under attack and in need of protection, human wickedness on a cosmic scale, and these ideas used in political manipulation. (113)
Overall, I found myself enjoying the book far more than I thought I would. It was an interesting read, and I think I learned something form it (still in the process of mulling over what I read in relation to my online course).
I thought it interesting that at one point she admits that she ignores discrepancies "in the 'real' world" in order for her theory to work as well as she wants it to work. It made me wonder how valid a theory it could be if she chooses to ignore irregularities that would call her theory into question. Overall, though, it did seem that her theory about groups based on a grid system seemed to be able to accurately describe many, if not most, groups and/or societies.
I thought the "weakest" chapter in the book was the one entitled "the problem with evil." I did not feel like she really delved into this problem as much as she seemed to skirt it before going off onto a tangent I felt was more of a "rabbit trail" than a valid discussion of the chapter's declared topic. I might have misunderstood the point she was trying to make, but I still felt that it was the weakest chapter in the book (in term of the narrative "supporting" the chapter's declared topic of conversation).
Her theory seems to focus on the belief that every group, every individual falls somewhere on a grid. Movement on the grid to the "left" is supposed to represent strong individuality (as being "weak" on the grid because there are to "strong moral values" or even "conviction over 'sin'") and movement to the "right" represents strong groups or strong societal pressure. Movement "up" the grid is also seen as "strong" whereas movement "down" the grid is seen as "weak." So you have four 'primary quadrants' composed of "strong grid, strong group," "strong grid, weak group," " weak grid, strong group," and "weak grid, weak group." The "strong" side of the grid is composed of those who are rigid, rational, and subsume the individual to the desires/pressure of the greater group. The "weak" side of the grid is composed of people who are more "individualistic" or "independent" in nature; they are less rigid, less rational, and do not necessarily have a strong sense of moral or spiritual values.
She did make a number of statements that I thought were interesting. Some of the ones that stood out to me the most were:
Any given classification system is itself a product of social relations. (59)
Progress further down that line to greater coherence of the private philosophy depends on an accompanying isolation from social pressures. (61)
To remain free of the public system of classification, the person needs above all not to covet its rewards. (61)
It seems that the freedom to be completely relaxed must be culturally controlled. (78)
There are thus four general characteristics of the witchcraft cosmology: the idea of the bad outside and the good inside, the inside under attack and in need of protection, human wickedness on a cosmic scale, and these ideas used in political manipulation. (113)
Overall, I found myself enjoying the book far more than I thought I would. It was an interesting read, and I think I learned something form it (still in the process of mulling over what I read in relation to my online course).
Read
June 10, 2020This book is very interesting. Its essential assertion is that the type of religion present in a society- whether it is ritualistic (full of external gestures carried out in exact order) or individualized, metaphysical or pragmatic (concerned with warding off witchcraft, for ex.) God-centric or humanistic-- is dependent on the type of social structure and tightness of community in that society. Prof. Douglas is also concerned with disproving the myth of linear evolution in religion, that is, primitive people had 'magic' religions and industrial civilizations have 'progressive' religions. Instead, she maps the occurrence of magical thinking or progressive religiosity to the social organizations in society, following the classifications in the typology of Basir Bernstein.
The book also tries to explain the cyclical dynamism of sects or religious movements. First, a new sect forms from discontent with previous religion due to socioeconomic shifts. Then, as the sect gains respectability, it accrues ritual, or symbolic gestures that could be devoid of personal intent. Third, the sect moves away from ritual again, as ‘contempt of external ritual forms arise’, religious experience is taught to be internalized, and finally the sect moves ‘toward humanistic philanthropy’.
Some quotes from the book are as follows:
"Secularization is often treated as a modern trend, attributable to the growth of cities or to the prestige of science, or just to the breakdown of social forms. But we shall see that it is an age-old cosmological type, a product of a de fi nable social experience, which need have nothing to do with urban life or modern science...when the social group grips its members in tight communal bonds, the religion is ritualist; when this grip is relaxed, ritualism declines.”
“alienation from the current social values usually takes a set form: a denunciation not only of irrelevant rituals, but of ritualism as such; exaltation of the inner experience and denigration of its standardized expressions; preference for intuitive and instant forms of knowledge; rejection of mediating institutions, rejection of any tendency to allow habit to provide the basis of a new symbolic system. In its extreme forms anti-ritualism is an attempt to abolish communication by means of complex symbolic systems. We will see, as this argument develops, that it is a viable attitude only in the early, unorganized stages of a new movement. After the protest stage, once the need for organization is recognized, the negative attitude to rituals is seen to con fl ict with the need for a coherent system of expression. Then ritualism re-asserts itself around the new context of social relations. Fundamentalists, who are not magical in their attitude to the Eucharist, become magical in their attitude to the Bible. Revolutionaries who strike for freedom of speech adopt repressive sanctions to prevent return to the Tower of Babel.”
The book also tries to explain the cyclical dynamism of sects or religious movements. First, a new sect forms from discontent with previous religion due to socioeconomic shifts. Then, as the sect gains respectability, it accrues ritual, or symbolic gestures that could be devoid of personal intent. Third, the sect moves away from ritual again, as ‘contempt of external ritual forms arise’, religious experience is taught to be internalized, and finally the sect moves ‘toward humanistic philanthropy’.
Some quotes from the book are as follows:
"Secularization is often treated as a modern trend, attributable to the growth of cities or to the prestige of science, or just to the breakdown of social forms. But we shall see that it is an age-old cosmological type, a product of a de fi nable social experience, which need have nothing to do with urban life or modern science...when the social group grips its members in tight communal bonds, the religion is ritualist; when this grip is relaxed, ritualism declines.”
“alienation from the current social values usually takes a set form: a denunciation not only of irrelevant rituals, but of ritualism as such; exaltation of the inner experience and denigration of its standardized expressions; preference for intuitive and instant forms of knowledge; rejection of mediating institutions, rejection of any tendency to allow habit to provide the basis of a new symbolic system. In its extreme forms anti-ritualism is an attempt to abolish communication by means of complex symbolic systems. We will see, as this argument develops, that it is a viable attitude only in the early, unorganized stages of a new movement. After the protest stage, once the need for organization is recognized, the negative attitude to rituals is seen to con fl ict with the need for a coherent system of expression. Then ritualism re-asserts itself around the new context of social relations. Fundamentalists, who are not magical in their attitude to the Eucharist, become magical in their attitude to the Bible. Revolutionaries who strike for freedom of speech adopt repressive sanctions to prevent return to the Tower of Babel.”
April 11, 2025
Ma tegelt ei saanudki lõpuni päris aru millest see raamat räãgib. Ma pean internetiga mingi ûhenduse looma ja pârima, et mis see 'natural symbols' üldse näiteks on.
Aga kui see välja arvata siis vãga hea raamat. Tãpselt selline mõistmise piirialadel.
Ehhmmm eee mmmm
Antropoloogia/sotsioloogia on ikka väga võimsad frameworkid mingite asjade üle mõtlemiseks.
Aga kui see välja arvata siis vãga hea raamat. Tãpselt selline mõistmise piirialadel.
Ehhmmm eee mmmm
Antropoloogia/sotsioloogia on ikka väga võimsad frameworkid mingite asjade üle mõtlemiseks.
May 16, 2024
El título es atrevido, pero finalmente produce sentido. Escribiría ella misma al final del libro: el abandono eclesiástico de la comunión, la muerte, la resurrección, la mortalidad y el don de lenguas; el abandono del cuerpo.
Read
December 18, 2025This is one of those books that I've decided not to rate. I've read it and been stimulated and challenged by it in parts. But I simply don't understand it at all deeply.
Read
March 15, 2015Durkheimian analyses of symbolic orders by showing their concordance with the forms of social orders.
May 10, 2015
[3.5, review soon]
April 27, 2017
'Grid and group' offers a very useful tool to reflect on context. It provokes difficult questions for development program design and evaluation. The rigor of supporting analysis is not convincing however, and demands testing. An intellectually engaging read.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews